{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2020-01-27", "page": 1, "text": "any\nOF\nTERKA\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., OCTOBER 28, 2019\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:35 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Chair Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Secretary Nancy Bronstein, Trustee Bill\nSoderlund. Absent: Trustee Nancy Elzig\nStaff: Tran Nguyen, Financial Services Manager, Elliott Otto, Accountant, Chad\nBarr, Human Resources Technician.\nThe new Financial Services Manager was introduced to the Board.\n3.\nMINUTES:\nTrustee Soderlund asked if minutes could be approved with Trustee Elzig being\nabsent and Chair Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft answered that the Board can ask if Chair\nhas read the minutes and has any questions or see any corrections that need to\nbe made. Chair indicated she had read the minutes and had no questions and\nso the minutes could be accepted by the present members.\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 29, 2019 were moved for acceptance\nby Trustee Soderlund and seconded by Nancy Bronstein. Passed 3-0.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending September 30,\n2019 and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the\nPeriod Ending September 30, 2019.", "path": "PensionBoard/2020-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2020-01-27", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, October 28, 2019\nPage 2\nFinance Accountant Otto explained the quarterly reports. The payouts were\nconsistent until September where there is an increase due to pay out of the\nuniform allowance. Trustee Soderlund commented it was good seeing account\nactivity. Finance accountant Otto explained the contributions into these plans\nexceeds the pay outs and that excess is used to pay down unfunded liability with\nCalPERS.\nChair asked how many members are in 1079 and 1082 plans. Finance\naccountant Otto replied 12 and 1, respectively.\nChair asked why pension plan pays for uniform allowance for retired employees.\nFinancial Service Manager Nguyen responded it was the outcome of a lawsuit.\nTrustee Soderlund moved to accept the financial statement as presented and\nSecretary Bronstein seconded. Passed 3-0.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT):\nThere were no oral communications from the public.\n6.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD):\nThere were no oral communications from the Board.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no additional items to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:47 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nme\nNancy Bronstein\nHuman Resources Director", "path": "PensionBoard/2020-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-01-27", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JANUARY 27, 2020\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Curtis convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Hom led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Cavanaugh, Hom, Saheba, and Teague.\nAbsent: Board Members Rothenberg and Ruiz.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nAllen Tai, City Planner, asked the Board to move item 6-A from the Consent Calendar to\nthe Regular Agenda because it requires a public hearing.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2020-7656\nPLN19-0501 - 2800 Fifth Street - Applicant: Catellus Alameda Development, LLC. - Public\nHearing to consider a recommendation to approve Parcel Map No. 11038 to subdivide six\nparcels into four parcels comprising approximately 22.86 acres. The project is exempt\nfrom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines\nSection 15315 - Minor Land Divisions. As a separate and independent basis, the 2006\nFinal Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was certified in accordance with the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development\n(State Clearinghouse #2006012091) and no further environmental review is required.\nStaff Member Tai introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4308444&GUID=31E10EA3-\nC4CA-4CCA-948A-D92810B95340&FullText=1\nBoard Member Teague asked if there would be one homeowners association for each\nparcel or one for the entire project.\nScott Wikstrom, City Engineer, said the subsequent subdivision will address homeowners\nassociations and this lot line adjustment is just to facilitate the development agreement.\nThere were no speakers.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 6\nJanuary 27, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-01-27", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member Teague moved approval of the staff recommendation. Board\nMember Cavanaugh seconded. The motion passed 5-0.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2020-7657\nPLN18-0562 - Use Permit - 2331 North Loop Road - Applicant: John L. Lipp on behalf of\nFriends of the Alameda Animal Shelter. Public hearing to consider a use permit to allow\nthe operation of an animal shelter that will include indoor boarding for up to 34 animals,\ntwo supervised outdoor animal runs, administrative offices, and community events, in a\nnew, 12,000-square-foot building on a 0.45 acre parcel. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal\nCode Section 30-4.10.c, animal shelters with supervised outdoor runs require the approval\nof a use permit when located within 200 feet of any residential district. This project is\ncategorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to\nCEQA Guidelines Sections 15332 (Infill Development) and 15183 (projects consistent with\nGeneral Plan and Zoning).\nDavid Sablan, Planner II, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4308549&GUID=BF6B453D-\n5BD6-42A7-ABDD-25ECE72BBBE6&FullText=1.\nJohn Lipp, FAAS, spoke about the intended use of the facility as an adoption center and\ndescribed a scenario where they might wish to have more than the maximum three dogs\nin an outdoor run.\nPresident Curtis said that the problem is noise, not the number of dogs, and that it would\nbe up to the applicant to keep that under control.\nMr. Lipp answered Board Member Teague's questions that there would be one staff\nperson per dog in the outdoor areas and they could meet that ratio if the condition were\nchanged. He answered Board Member Hom's questions to say that the six dog limit is\nacceptable but they would like the flexibility to have more than three in any given area.\nBoard Member Teague asked what material the fence around the property would be as it\nrelates to possible acoustic effects.\nJim Moore, project architect, said they would work with the neighbors to design the fence.\nAnswering Board Member Cavanaugh's question, he said runoff from the dog runs would\nbe filtered through the project's storm water system.\nPresident Curtis opened the public hearing.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 6\nJanuary 27, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-01-27", "page": 3, "text": "CJ Jiang said the outdoor dog runs concern the neighbors, including their hours of\noperations. They said the property values would take a hit. They asked that the dog runs\nbe moved indoors or enclosed, at minimum not share a fence with neighbors, eliminate\nthe rooftop runs, and prohibit public events on the rooftop and asked for the application to\nbe denied until those issues can be addressed.\nPresident Curtis closed the public hearing.\nMr. Lipp, answering Board Member Hom's questions, said the rooftop will not be an event\nspace but members of the public may be brought there on tours.\nBoard Member Teague said the building design is a done deal and the Board is only\ndiscussing the use permit. He said he would support adding the one-to-one ratio into the\nuse permit and removing the three dog limit. He said he would want continued noise\ncomplaints to trigger the three dog limit. He said adding some material to the fence that\nabsorbs some of the sound would be a reasonable condition.\nBoard Member Hom said he is open to some flexibility in the number of dogs. He said the\nfence detail should be subject to further review by the Planning Director and that the use\npermit should be subject to review if staff determines there are enough noise complaints.\nBoard Member Saheba expressed surprise that an acoustical report was not provided for\nthe neighbors to evaluate and to determine the barrier treatments. He supported the one-\nto-one requirement. He said he would consider adjusting the maximum number of dogs at\nground level but not on the roof because of sound projection.\nPresident Curtis said the use permit should be left at three dogs maximum.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the staff recommendation with\nthe following changes: allowing up to four dogs on the outside run and three dogs\non the rooftop run; and bring back a staff report on any noise complaints of the\nresidents after a year of operation. Board Member Hom seconded the motion.\nStaff Member Tai said the typical standard for use permit complaints, included in this use\npermit, is three verified violations will trigger a public hearing for possible revocation.\nThe motion passed 5-0.\n7-B 2020-7658\nPLN20-0017 - Block 11 Landscape Plan - Alameda Point Site A - Applicant: Alameda\nPoint Partners. Public Hearing to consider the proposed landscape plan for Block 11 at\nAlameda Point Site A. The landscape plan follows final Planning Board approval of Design\nReview for the Block 11 building architecture on December 9, 2019. Approval of the\nlandscape plan for the Block 11 is not subject to CEQA under McCorkle Eastside\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 6\nJanuary 27, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-01-27", "page": 4, "text": "Neighborhood Group V. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80, which found that\ndesign review for by-right projects is a ministerial decision under Public Resources Code\nsection 21080.\nStaff Member Tai introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4308590&GUID=197B9608\n0760-4AB7-9F26-4B8CDCE9FOOF&FullText=\nBradley Sugarman and, BAR Architects, and David Fletcher, landscape designer, gave a\npresentation.\nMr. Fletcher answered Board questions clarifying the species, sizes, and configuration of\nthe landscape plan.\nThere were no public speakers.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the landscape plan. Board Member\nTeague seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.\n7-C 2020-7659\nPLN19-0477 - Design Review Study Session - 2390 Mariner Square Drive - Applicant:\nBanner NorCal Developer, LLC. The Planning Board will hold a study session for a new,\nsix-story self-storage building and outdoor storage for boats and recreational vehicles with\nassociated landscaping and fencing. The proposed building is approximately 72 feet in\nheight at its tallest point and approximately 110,844 square feet in size. The project is\nlocated within the M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) Zoning District. The proposed\nbuilding is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to\nCEQA Guidelines Section 15332 - Infill Development.\nStaff Member Sablan gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4308591&GUID=8AA18066-\n7066-48E2-94EF-5C5191AD3F97&FullText=1\nMargo Connelly, Banner Storage, gave a presentation.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if the building would have any sustainability features.\nMs. Connelly said they will meet California building code for being solar ready but have\nnot determined whether the project would include solar.\nMike Ofterheid, project architect, responding to Board Member Saheba's question said\nthe screen wall would be the same material used on the building to blend in with the overall\nproject.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 6\nJanuary 27, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-01-27", "page": 5, "text": "Ms. Connelly, in response to Board Member Hom's questions, said there would be\napproximately 850 units, many as small as 5'x5'. She said the parking study is based off\nof ITE for the square footage and counts at a similar facility in the area.\nMr. Ofterheid said the project would use a variety stamped metal panels on the building\nsiding.\nPresident Curtis opened the public hearing.\nShelley Barnhill, Barnhill Marina, said the project will be a big improvement over the\ncurrent use of the site. She said the lighting was the main concern that could impact her\nfloating home residents.\nPresident Curtis closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Hom said the landscaping of the City's property should be appropriately\ntied to the phasing of this project. He suggested increasing the landscape setback for the\nRV parking and screening wall.\nBoard Member Teague said he likes having more contrast on the metal panels, would like\nto see solar included in the project, bike storage and EZ Passes for staff. He said the fence\nmay have to be higher, would like to see renderings from other perspectives, the building\nlooks good and the parking analysis looks reasonable.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said the large windows would need to keep the bird safe\nwindows ordinance in mind, asked if the street parking would be able to handle busy\nperiods, asked to better understand what function(s) the fence would serve, and asked if\nthe brick designs of nearby buildings could be incorporated into the design.\nBoard Member Saheba said increasing the buffer of the screen wall, even intermittently,\nshould be explored to allow more plantings. He said his understanding is the glazing does\nnot provide anything for the inside of the building and the building could become quieter.\nHe said he does not see the need for any of the glazing except for the office area and the\npattern of the panels could envelop the whole building. He suggested doing more to let\nthe building's function dictate the design. He said the landscaping will be critical and that\nhe would like to see more thought about the sustainable features.\nPresident Curtis said the different color panels and the random pattern detract from the\ndesign. He said the design is too busy.\nBoard Member Teague said he likes the glazing on the corner to emphasize that element\nbut agreed that the other windows could be removed.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 6\nJanuary 27, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-01-27", "page": 6, "text": "10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Teague said he would be meeting with the Vice Mayor and others\nregarding paths forward on Article 26.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Curtis adjourned the meeting at 8.55 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 6\nJanuary 27, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-01-27.pdf"}